The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Disambiguate. Just be bold, and make it into a disambiguation withour RfD. ( non-admin closure) QuickQuokka ^{[⁠ talk • contribs} 19:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Abeceda → Alphabet  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Czech, Slovene, and Slovak for "Alphabet", the first alphabet did not originate in the Czech Republic, Slovenia, or Slovakia. Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 20:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete, fails WP:FORRED. Largoplazo ( talk) 21:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Dabify to Czech orthography, slovene alphabet, and Slovak orthography, because it is more relevant.  QuickQuokka ^{[⁠ talk • contribs} 22:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Did you mean disambiguate? Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 23:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ Faster than Thunder: See WP:G#D QuickQuokka ^{[⁠ talk • contribs} 09:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Drafted disambiguation. Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 23:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Disambiguate per QuickQuokka and Silesianus. Faster than Thunder ( talk | contributions | block) 00:17, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• I also vote for keeping the current disambiguation page, and removing the discussion warning. Dzenanz ( talk) 13:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Clear consensus to delete. Less clear regarding moving the politician's article. That can be handled through the editorial process or RM. MBisanz ^talk 01:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Erin Sheehan → Virginia Tech shooting  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Deletion; page created unnecessary confusion. Page stats reveal that people are not searching for this obscure survivor of a crime. KidAd • SPEAK 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note I corrected the current redirect target above. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Commment Note that there is Erin Sheehan (Maine politician), so we can't just delete the base page. Really this should be a requested move discussion to consider whether the Maine politician is the primary topic. Currently, there is no hatnote to the politician page, nor a dab page at Erin Sheehan (disambiguation), so I agree the status quo is inadequate. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
  • FWIW, I would say that RFD is more appropriate here over RM since the subject of the nominated redirect and the subject of Erin Sheehan (Maine politician) are two different subjects. (Also, for the record, I just moved Erin Sheehan (Maine politician) to Erin Sheehan (politician) per WP:PRECISE.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I think that's fine. If we determine here there shouldn't be a redirect to the Virginia tech page, then the politician page should be moved by default. Or we could decide to disambiguate at the base name. If kept as is, though, a hatnote should be added, and a future RM could always then address the ptopic question. Mdewman6 ( talk) 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Complicating the matter though, is that the redirect is the result of a WP:BLAR. So perhaps it should really be restored and sent to AfD? Mdewman6 ( talk) 23:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete Erin Sheehan. And as a default for non-ambiguous pages, move Erin Sheehan (politician) to Erin Sheehan. --- CX Zoom(^he/_him) ( ^{let's talk}| _contribs) 09:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Revert per WP:BLAR and send to AfD. There is a mention of Erin Sheehan in the Norris Hall shootings section of the target, but it's a single mention with the sole purpose of attributing a quote so nowhere near enough to anchor a redirect. I'm almost certain that AfD will delete the sub-stub about them, but it is not speediable and has not been discussed so it cannot be deleted here. Add a hatnote to the politician from the restored article and mentioned them at the AfD so the closer will know to move that article if/when the shooting survivor's article is deleted. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Move Erin Sheehan (politician) over redirect as the primary topic. Virginia Tech's Erin Sheehan is clearly non-notable and should not be restored. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 16:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  So which speedy deletion criterion does the article meet? Thryduulf ( talk) 18:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  I do not share your opinion that former articles must be speediable to be deleted here. If there is consensus to delete, that is all that is needed. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 18:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  And you have never been able to explain how this is compatible with the deletion policy and guidelines like WP:BLAR, so I don't expect you to be able to this time (but I can hope), but it helps the closer and any editors unfamiliar with RfD to articulate that it is contrary to policy. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Certainly, this is the most fundamental principle of WP:RFD: Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed. Items usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted, kept, or retargeted. This is a potentially problematic redirect, so after a week or more of discussion, if there is consensus to delete it will be deleted (and then Erin Sheehan (politician) can be moved there). I actually don't see how WP:BLAR is relevant with this redirect. It explains what happens when there is disagreement with the blanking of an article, but I don't see anyone actually arguing that the Virigina Tech Erin Sheehan should have an article so there is no disagreement here. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 18:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Trying to understand BLAR better. Does a disagreement with a BLAR always mean the page should be restored/kept? Because if a disagreement can also mean that the page should be deleted, then this RfD looks like a late contested BLAR. Jay (talk) 11:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  In WP:BLAR, the disagreement is referring to the act of blanking the article. At RfD, that would take the form of an editor making an argument in favor of an article on the topic. That can take the form of a delete !vote; if the argument for deletion is to encourage the creation of an article on the topic, we might as well restore the article then (the caveat being if the article is not in restore-worthy shape, and WP:TNT may be better). If the subject of the article were to be someone with no credible claim of significance, that's not something we want to restore and the redirect should be deleted (given no scope of discussion of the subject at the target). Furthermore, even if there is a disagreement it may be easier/better to settle it at RfD depending on the context of the dispute. BLAR mentions that other methods of dispute resolution should be used and goes on to call out AfD by name, but RfD is also a forum of dispute resolution. My rule of thumb is: if the status quo is an article, it should be discussed as one at AfD; if the status quo is a redirect, it should be discussed as one at RfD. As I mentioned to Mdewman6 earlier, I do agree that AfD is the better forum overall. However, it does a disservice to AfD to dump our junk over onto them simply because it used to be an article over a decade ago for five minutes; we have the ability to determine whether or not—at a bare minimum—a given article would stand a chance at AfD. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:53, 12 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  So you don't see a clear separation of responsbilities between RfD and AfD, and that RfD participants can make AfD-style arguments. If an RfD turns out to be a de facto AfD, the closer is bound to go by the consensus. As this is about process, I'm moving the discussion to the talk page WT:Redirects for discussion#BLARs at RfD. Jay (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Well, there is a clear separation of responsibility: AfD is for articles and RfD is for redirects. Whenever there is a redirect with article content in its history, you're going to have to make some kind of determination on the "keepworthiness" of the content. Thus the two processes are not mutually exclusive. I trust RfD participants to have some kind of idea for what may or may not be notable and handle the content accordingly. Some RfDs even turn out to be a "de facto RM" and I'm okay with that too so long as that was not the original intent of the nomination. The bottom line: if a consensus on what to do with a redirect has been reached, I expect the closer to carry out this consensus accordingly. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 15:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  It may be fine to reach consensus here that the redirect should not be kept, and then perform a round-robin move that would maintain the history of the blanked article, however, in that case the page history with the previous article would be at an inappropriate title (the article's subject was not, to my knowledge, a politician) and could not easily be restored for that reason. Therefore, it would be best the redirect be deleted first in that case, and I tend to agree with Thryduulf that in most cases of a past BLAR deletion is a decision best reached at AfD. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Well no, it would not be fine to perform a round-robin move that places the Virginia Tech Erin Sheehan at an inappropriate title. Instead, we can keep the edit history of this redirect by suppress moving the redirect to eg. Erin Sheehan (Virginia Tech) (and keeping it as a redirect to the VT shooting!) and then the politician can be moved to the base title. I also agree that a WP:BLAR disagreement is best adjudicated at AfD. However, I maintain that WP:BLAR is inapplicable here because no such disagreement has presented itself here. Restoring former articles that no one is advocating for lead to silly and unnecessary AfDs that could have easily been taken care of at RfD. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 01:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Right, moving the redirect to an acceptable alternative, disambiguated title to make way for the obvious primary topic would certainly be superior to having the history at the wrong subject. Mdewman6 ( talk) 05:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete (and move other page). Generally, content is only deleted on Wikipedia through CSD, PROD, AfD, and more obscurely PDEL. At the same time, however, there is nothing forbidding RfD from deleting redirects with content in their history, and most everyone agrees that there are some such redirects that can be deleted; it's just a question of where we draw the line. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and thus I draw that line at "would be speedily deleted, would likely not have a PROD challenged, or would have a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD". This has a snowball's chance in Hell of surviving AfD. Sending this to AfD wastes editor-hours. Deleting it now wastes no usable content. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she/they) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, without objection to moving the other page. No meaningful content at target, nothing in the history worth preserving (no-one has objected to the removal of the article for 15 years, so just treat it like an extra-long-duration PROD). – Uanfala (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Jay (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Book 4: Air → Avatar: The Last Airbender  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

This redirect seems to refer to a non-existent 4th season of the target's subject. Third-party search results return results for fan-fiction. Steel1943 ( talk) 14:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This seems like it could refer to the first season of the sequel series, which is titled "Book One: Air", but I don't know if that's too tenuous to retarget it to. The redirect gets very few views.-- Alexandra ^IDV 15:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete, since it doesn't pertain to the original, and it's wrong with regard to the season number of the sequel.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. As unopposed deletion nomination. Jay (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Avatar-Bending Master → Avatar: The Last Airbender  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned in target article, leaving the connection unclear. Also, WP:FANDOM-like third-party search results do not return this exact phrase either; third-party results use "bending master(s)" without the word "avatar". Steel1943 ( talk) 14:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Possible Debuting Countries In The Eurovision Dance Contest → Eurovision Dance Contest 2008#Possible new participants  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Possible debuting countries in the Eurovision Dance Contest → Eurovision Dance Contest 2008#Possible new participants  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

I really hope people aren't still trying to figure out which countries may possibly be debuting in the 2008 Eurovision Dance Contest... -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 03:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete all: I do not see how those redirects could have a logical target. Veverve ( talk) 06:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete all, dance contest has been inactive since 2009. If it were the song contest then it can link to the appropriate section. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 06:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete all - Not a plausible search term. No one is speculating about what the contestants WILL BE anymore, given that we know for certain who they WERE. Fieari ( talk) 07:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. This might be a plausible search term if the contest were not defunct, but it is. No prejudice against recreation if the contest resumes and the article has relevant content, but that doesn't seem likely at the present time. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete all per above. --- CX Zoom(^he/_him) ( ^{let's talk}| _contribs) 09:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Gamma-amino butyne acid → Gamma-Aminobutyric acid  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

the use of "butyne" would imply the presence of an alkyne functional group, or a triple bond, in the compound, which is not the case, so this misleading incorrect name for the compound should be deleted. Mdewman6 ( talk) 20:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Misleading redirect. --- CX Zoom(^he/_him) ( ^{let's talk}| _contribs) 09:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep as refined to List of experimental cat breeds#Elf. -- Tavix ^{( talk)} 17:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Elf cat → List of experimental cat breeds  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 
• Elf Cat → List of experimental cat breeds  ( talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure:  keep/ retarget/ delete ] 

Not mentioned at the target article, leaving the association between the redirect and the target article unclear. Also, Elf cat was previously an article which was redirected to the current retarget via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf cat. Steel1943 ( talk) 07:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• It would be better to undelete the article to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Elf_cat (which I think I'd suggested at the AfD), so I can summarize it with the one (I think) good source, and maybe find another, so there is a section at List of experimental cat breeds for the redirect to target.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep, add content at target consistent with close of the AfD. The article was redirected, not deleted. If content from the redirected article is useful for adding to the current target, simply take what is desired from the article in the page history and add to the target with an edit summary along the lines of "merged content from [[Special:Permalink/808108479|this version]] of [[Elf cat]]" to provide adequate attribution. Would also be good to use the {{ copied}} template on the redirect and target talk pages to have an explicit record of what was done. Mdewman6 ( talk) 02:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep and restore sourced section at the list per Mdewman6. AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark • sniff) 06:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep and include the section in that article based on the deleted article as per the AfD discussion. Fieari ( talk) 07:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
• SMcCandlish can you create a summary of Elf cat that can be added to the list, as you suggested here, and at the AfD? Jay (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Yes, if I can have the original restored to userspace to summarize it.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  The original is available in the page history. Nothing was actually deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  @ SMcCandlish: in case you didn't see the above. eviolite (talk) 02:04, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

  Ah! Okay, I'll look into summarizing this with the valid sources, probably tomorrow.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

   Done: I already did it; there wasn't much worth keeping. List of experimental cat breeds#Elf. I updated the redirect already.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.